If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You have to login or register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

LEADING CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS have spent the last year relentlessly accusing Donald Trump of being controlled by or treasonously loyal to a hostile foreign power. Over the last several months, they have added to those disloyalty charges a new set of alleged crimes: abusing the powers of the executive branch — including the Justice Department and FBI — to vindictively punish political opponents while corruptly protecting the serious crimes of his allies, including his own family members and possibly himself.

I'm still pissed about the Louis CK thing too. Those bitches said "YES"!!

I'll be the first to say it.....MeToo thing is going way way way too far.

I remember after 9/11 you couldn't talk to anyone without them saying "My mom's, neighbor's, avon lady's, son's, football coach's, cousin was 41 blocks from the North Tower just 10 hours before it happened!!!"

Everybody has to get in on the action.

There seems to be some new standard of womanhood where you're not empowered until you take down a man.

I'm still pissed about the Louis CK thing too. Those bitches said "YES"!!

I'll be the first to say it.....MeToo thing is going way way way too far.

I remember after 9/11 you couldn't talk to anyone without them saying "My mom's, neighbor's, avon lady's, son's, football coach's, cousin was 41 blocks from the North Tower just 10 hours before it happened!!!"

Everybody has to get in on the action.

There seems to be some new standard of womanhood where you're not empowered until you take down a man.

A young woman, who is given the identity-protecting name “Grace” in the story, was excited to encounter Ansari at a party in Los Angeles bla bla bla

You're gonna have to do some bigtime logical somersaults to explain to me how a woman exercising control over what happens to her body is "inherently sexist".

This is why "yes means yes" and affirmative and informed consent is so important.

When you go back to a man's apartment, you've said "yes". You can say "no" any time after that. Like when he says "i'm gonna go get a condom". That would be a perfect time to speak up for yourself.

And truly if you're telling me that once she goes back to his place, she's stuck and can't possibly say no.....THEN DON'T GO BACK TO HIS FUCKING APARTMENT UNLESS YOU'RE GOOD TO GO!

He could have ruined her. She couldn't consent under these conditions because it's coercion even if she did say yes

No no no. I'm flat out refusing to buy into this line that says you can't ever say no to a man because any man has the power to ruin you. That's fucking bullshit. You don't get to imagine the worst case scenario, contain it entirely inside your own head, and then claim it was used as leverage to coerce you.

Using that logic, I should be able to run from the cops because they might plant evidence on me.

Yes, I'm staying with the CUCKposting theme of the thread, so I'm staying in CUCKposting character based on the types of things that these people actually believe. Moreover, I'm almost universally saying things that I've seen these types say repeatedly.

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You're gonna have to do some bigtime logical somersaults to explain to me how a woman exercising control over what happens to her body is "inherently sexist".

The point is that she can't exercise control over her body when she is coerced into sex, but you can't understand that because you benefit from the power structures of the patriarchy.

Originally Posted by BananaStand

When you go back to a man's apartment, you've said "yes". You can say "no" any time after that. Like when he says "i'm gonna go get a condom". That would be a perfect time to speak up for yourself.

And truly if you're telling me that once she goes back to his place, she's stuck and can't possibly say no.....THEN DON'T GO BACK TO HIS FUCKING APARTMENT UNLESS YOU'RE GOOD TO GO!

Going back to a man's apartment does not give him the right to rape you.

If you're at a man's apartment, and he says he's going to get a condom, you can't say no because you don't know if he's going to beat the shit out of you and not let you leave. He should respond to all of the cues that show I'm not interested.

{Commentary: The pairing of these two statements is hilarious to me.}

Originally Posted by BananaStand

No no no. I'm flat out refusing to buy into this line that says you can't ever say no to a man because any man has the power to ruin you. That's fucking bullshit. You don't get to imagine the worst case scenario, contain it entirely inside your own head, and then claim it was used as leverage to coerce you.

This is typical of straight, white, cisgender males who have never went a day in their lives without being in power.

The point is that she can't exercise control over her body when she is coerced into sex, but you can't understand that because you benefit from the power structures of the patriarchy.

Coerced? By willingly drinking and going back to a man's apartment?

Going back to a man's apartment does not give him the right to rape you

Agreed. But it's not rape if you say yes.

If you're at a man's apartment, and he says he's going to get a condom, you can't say no because you don't know if he's going to beat the shit out of you and not let you leave.

WHAAAAAAATTTT??? So we're just assuming that every man is a violent abuser until he proves otherwise? That's fucking bullshit.

But also, if that's really the standard you're going with...then you should be choosier about who's apartment you go back to after a date. I mean, if it's your assumption that a man will beat you if you say no, then why would you ever put yourself in that position if it's your intention to say no?

He should respond to all of the cues that show I'm not interested.

Which cues were those? Was it when she took her panties off, sat on his kitchen counter and spread her legs so he could fit his face in there?

This is typical of straight, white, cisgender males who have never went a day in their lives without being in power

If anything you're saying is true....I should be getting laid way more.

By the way, this isn't actually a thing, since by law, consent can be revoked at any time.

Not trolling anymore on this topic, but they're actually making a lot of progress towards getting consent laws changed to reflect the type of ridiculous bullshit I was talking about here. It's the current law in California and Michigan, actually. See below:

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill into law that makes California the first in the nation to have a clear definition of when people agree to sex. The law goes further than the common "no means no" standard, which has been blamed for bringing ambiguity into investigations of sexual assault cases.

The new law seeks both to improve how universities handle rape and sexual assault accusations and to clarify the standards, requiring an "affirmative consent" and stating that consent can't be given if someone is asleep or incapacitated by drugs or alcohol.

"Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent," the law states, "nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."

Bullshit. You just quoted a California law as an example of "progress"

GTFO cuck-troll

Progress would be allowing those accused of rape on campus to have lawyers, or face their accusers, as they should when accused of a criminal charge. Instead this law just creates an insane standard of proof by which the accused must defend himself.

I'm wondering when some of these accused men are going to start blaming their math teachers for abusing them at a young age.

I literally see a headline about a female teacher fucking a male student every single week. Where's the social media movement to stop that stuff from happening?

[libtard]

The vast majority of sex offenders are men. It doesn't make sense to waste resources on the tiny percentage that are women. That's like saying white lives matter.

[/libtard]

I've talked about this before with some other FTRers, so I figure I'll bring it up since it's relevant, but I was [by legal definition] raped by a female teacher when I was in school. I was in my late teens, and she was in her mid-20s. In my state, it would not have been [by legal definition] rape if she wasn't my teacher, so I'll let you go ahead and scratch your head about that. I kept seeing her for a couple of years after I finished high school.

The year after I graduated, a male teacher from the same school was charged and eventually sentenced for fucking a student with around the same ages involved. He did prison time and was put on the sex offender list. He started dating the student (who had graduated by then and was in college) when he got out, and they were engaged the last I heard.

So someone finally takes a stand against the witch-hunt and attention-grabbing victim mentality and she gets shamed into the ground for it.

Fuck 2018

It's not one sided though, if anyone stands up against a big enough group the internet and the information you choose to put on it has enough to destroy you. It's really easy to ruin someones livelihood when you've got a big enough crowd. It's as simple as disrupting your place of work so much they get rid of you.

It's not one sided though, if anyone stands up against a big enough group the internet and the information you choose to put on it has enough to destroy you. It's really easy to ruin someones livelihood when you've got a big enough crowd. It's as simple as disrupting your place of work so much they get rid of you.

There's a good book about this called SJWs Always Lie. The basic premise of the book is about how to protect yourself from those types of situations with both short-term and long-term solutions.

Literally everyone who has ever been accused of rape or sexual assault has been found guilty. This is totally an accurate representation of what is happening, not in my imagination, but in the real world. No need to look at the numbers. It's true. Don't believe me? Here's an article about this one case where police are holding an investigation.

Lawrence Lessig is the Harvard professor who was the source of like ten dozen different headlines between election day and the electoral college headcount that kept giving liberals optimism that Trump wouldn't win the electoral college. Like every day in /r/Politics it was like 5 different headlines being like, "Harvard Professor Says At Least Five Electors Will Defect," and you'd click on it, and it'd be that one guy being used as the source every-single-time, lol.

Once up on a time 4,000 kids were diagnosed with ADD in the US each year.

Then Ritalin was invented, and now 400,000 kids are diagnosed each year.

You can't tell me that dumping paint on fur coats even compares to the profit-motivated exploitation of children.

And it's not just kids.

Once upon a time, if you ate alot of food at once, you were a gluttonous fat-ass.

Then they invented a drug that suppresses appetite.

Now, binge-eating is an actual clinical diagnosis.

Once upon a time, if your kid was just a pain in the ass, they would test him for Aspergers and charge the balls out of your insurance.

Then the DSM V came out and now...Aspergers is no longer a disease. Can you believe that? It's gone from the diagnostic manual. For years they have been testing and treating and drugging kids, and when they didn't make enough money from it, they dropped it from their repetoire.

Now there is a "spectrum". Meaning there are dozens of tests they can give your kid, and charge the balls out of your insurance. And while we're at it, let's start trying out various cocktails of medication to see which one zombifies your kid best.

Once up on a time 4,000 kids were diagnosed with ADD in the US each year.

Then Ritalin was invented, and now 400,000 kids are diagnosed each year.

You can't tell me that dumping paint on fur coats even compares to the profit-motivated exploitation of children.

And it's not just kids.

Once upon a time, if you ate alot of food at once, you were a gluttonous fat-ass.

Then they invented a drug that suppresses appetite.

Now, binge-eating is an actual clinical diagnosis.

Once upon a time, if your kid was just a pain in the ass, they would test him for Aspergers and charge the balls out of your insurance.

Then the DSM V came out and now...Aspergers is no longer a disease. Can you believe that? It's gone from the diagnostic manual. For years they have been testing and treating and drugging kids, and when they didn't make enough money from it, they dropped it from their repetoire.

Now there is a "spectrum". Meaning there are dozens of tests they can give your kid, and charge the balls out of your insurance. And while we're at it, let's start trying out various cocktails of medication to see which one zombifies your kid best.

Don't even get me started on this shit....

I was just carrying on, but I do agree with your general sentiment.

There are two relatively recent developments on the ADHD front that are of particular interest to the above issues with regards to handing out drugs like candy, etc.

First is that there's a lot of evidence that there are really two separate disorders that have been mistakenly assigned to the same thing. They are now known as ADHD-I and ADHD-H. Comorbidity rates for each with things like psychopathy are incredibly different, and effective treatment for each are also pretty different. Interestingly enough, the main guy (Russell Barkely) pushing for this distinction and the people who decide what goes in the DSM (and what doesn't) are very much at odds over this. He's also very much against handing out drugs like candy just because lol adhd.

Second is that we now have ways to confirm ADHD diagnoses with an EEG. One method involves the ratio of different frequencies of brain waves. What's so interesting about this is that neurofeedback therapy is showing some super serious promise in getting these shits back to how they're supposed to be permanently, which could become a literal cure for the whole situation. Can you guess where the ASA stands on that? lol

All garbage. Science knows about 2% of what's going on upstairs. The rest is just guesses and bullshit 'conclusions' based on hardly-compelling stats. Ask poop what he thinks about "studies show 53% of those studied......"

I'm not following your analogy. I'm talking about the genetics a person is born with.

You're being intentionally shitty.

You know as well as anyone that anyone without an XX or XY is an anomaly/mutation/defortmity that can be ignored for practical purposes.

Are you really suggesting that's its even useful/meaningful/worthwhile to create a third or more gender/sex classification to cover the one in a jillion individuals who got too much moonshine in the womb??

nobody who lived on a farm back in 1830 had adhd. that's for damn sure.

the above probably applies to >90%.

Interestingly enough, there are references to many of the same types of clusters of symptoms that go back several centuries.

There's getting to be more testing now that can separate an actual disorder (which you can see pretty clearly see the effects or causes of, depending which camp you're in, on an MRI) and a bratty kid who needs his ass beat. I find this type of shit pretty fascinating myself.

However, I really want to get off of the ADHD topic and back on being a pansexual gender non-conformist.

Though, you have to admit that dems holding the gov't hostage over DACA is reckless. Especially when they themselves have not proposed any compromise immigration bill. If they had something on the table...you could cut them some slack. But they don't.

Also, you have to admit that Trump has greater leadership challenges than Obama had in 2013. It's one thing for dems and repubs to have philosophical impasses on policy. It's another thing to vote against something good just cuz you hate the prez and want to see him fail.

Finally, when they inevitably pass a spending bill....are you gonna praise Trump for bringing both sides together??

Seems it should be easier when you have a majority in both the house and the senate.

This is an intentionally ignorant explanation being peddled by the left. They're getting away with it because most American's aren't tuned-in enough to know that the actual rules require 60 votes, which means the Democrats have to do something more than make hostage-demands.

they say "but repubs have the majority", like having a majority matters, but it doesn't.

This is an intentionally ignorant explanation being peddled by the left. They're getting away with it because most American's aren't tuned-in enough to know that the actual rules require 60 votes, which means the Democrats have to do something more than make hostage-demands.

they say "but repubs have the majority", like having a majority matters, but it doesn't.

The rules require 60 votes to open the debate, 51 to pass the bill, no? So the president got the 60 votes needed for the tax bill to open for debate, and enough votes to pass it, but not the 60 needed to keep the government running, is that what happened?

Also, aren't 3 R senators on record as saying they wouldn't vote for the latest thing? I don't know, but seems a good president would at least manage to unite his own party. A very stable genius would be good at leading like that I'd think.

Poop, its difficult to take you seriously when your position is based on incorrect information.

It takes 60 votes to break a democrat filibuster and pass the bill.

Democrats are intentionally blocking the passing of the bill because they want a deal on DACA now, even though the actual deadline on that is March.

Not denying that leadership us partially to blame here. But youre being quite fescicious if youre denying that the dems are guilty of reckless partisan bullshit

So the times the R's did the same thing wasn't reckless partisan bullshit? I'm not saying the D's are right to do what they do, I'm just confused about what the very stable genius thinks needs to happen in order to run his government. Either he needs to lead from the top and get people to compromise, or...?

Or...trump could abandon his platform, fail his constituents, and cave in on immigration.

That would ALSO be a failure of leadership.

If you wanna be intentionally glib and say everything is the presidents fault....go ahed, make yourself look foolish. Only a fool would deny that these senators are failing at their jobs.

Trump is damned if he does, damned if he doesnt. So...nice chess moves dems. You can tout your victory to the hundreds of thousands set to be furloughed on monday.

This is now a battle in the press. Both sides assign blame and the partisans on TV try to convince the american people who's right.

In the end though, the dems are demanding a deal for illegal immigrants and they are doing it by holding american citizens hostage. The Trump media machine is spreading that message. Dems are saying...."oooh in 2013 you said nyah nyah myah nyah"

Eventually both sides will give a little and the bill will get passed.

That's how good government generally works.

The question is why did it have to come to this? A very stable genius should have been able to talk to both sides and lead them through it to a compromise without all the drama and angst that's going on now. That's what good leaders do.